DiscussMormonism.com

John Larsen wrote:I was once set apart as the ward unplanned party planner committee member. It is not a far stretch to say that they have also been set apart.

Now THERE's proof. Astounding what passes for proof and logic here.

The Nehor wrote:First their work was overly spiritualized and they were set apart for their work by high spiritual authority and now they're anti-spiritual bigots, cripples with no real spiritual backing.

Will you crackpots make up your mind as to which extreme evil you're going to accuse people of? Are they guilty of priestcraft or apostasy?

Their work isn't spiritual in nature at all (I don't believe anyone here referred to it as such - except you).

Getting set apart by a priesthood leader is generally about as spiritual as a bowel movement, Nehor. It's how you live within a calling that determines whether your actions are spiritual in nature.

These guys avoid speaking of the more important things - ie. the Good News, their own personal relationship to Christ or the Mormon God, repentance/forgiveness, empathy, charity, love - principles that potentially encourage the development of spirituality. They don't write from their heart, they write from their heads.

Reading a handfull of FARMS reviews told me a great deal about the integrity of today's church leaders that have permitted them to be the authorized Charlotten faith healers of our day.

Every time I read something from guys like DCP etc., I am reminded of a fellow with a black apron saying, "..I have said nothing about Father". - because they never do.

________

"..a man cannot teach unless he has been trained for the ministry" - Remark to Satan from his Protestant priest from pre-1990 endowment.

.
.
.

Inconceivable wrote:Their work isn't spiritual in nature at all (I don't believe anyone here referred to it as such - except you).

Getting set apart by a priesthood leader is generally about as spiritual as a bowel movement, Nehor. It's how you live within a calling that determines whether your actions are spiritual in nature.

These guys avoid speaking of the more important things - ie. the Good News, their own personal relationship to Christ or the Mormon God, repentance/forgiveness, empathy, charity, love - principles that potentially encourage the development of spirituality. They don't write from their heart, they write from their heads.

Reading a handfull of FARMS reviews told me a great deal about the integrity of today's church leaders that have permitted them to be the authorized Charlotten faith healers of our day.

Every time I read something from guys like DCP etc., I am reminded of a fellow with a black apron saying, "..I have said nothing about Father". - because they never do.

You're an idiot.

Are you also suggesting that scientists should write about what they feel about reality instead of their experiments? OF COURSE they're not talking about their spiritual relationship with God. That's for Fast and Testimony meetings, discussion with friends, and preaching the Gospel which is NOT what they're doing in the FARMS review or in most apologetics discussions.

You can't win with you people. Try to preach faith and spirituality and we're accused of being irrational. Talk rationally and we're accused of ignoring our own religion. No wonder the Millenium has to be so long. It will take that long for hell to burn this zany mentality out of you.

Then we have your inane suggestion that the FARMS review is the word of God to the masses smuggled out with leadership approval. Where do you people get this idea that apologetics is some monolithic force with great power? IT'S NOT. It's a couple of people, most of them writing in their spare time, working on a hobby that some people enjoy discussing and reading about. What kind of a complex inflates them to this degree?

Mister Scratch wrote:Similarly, some have postulated that the top-drawer apologists were set apart by the General Authorities, and that FARMS Chairmanships and the like are actually Church callings. I also believe this is true. I believe that some members of the Maxwell Institute are actually fulfilling callings for the Church, and that, in a very real sense, they believe they are serving the Brethren on a kind of spiritual mission. I believe that hands were laid on the head of DCP and Louis Midgley, and that these brothers were called to be apologists for the Church.

I don't know one way or the other whether certain apologists are "set apart" or receive some special calling. It certainly doesn't seem far-fetched to me. I recall in Bruce Hafen's bio of Neal Maxwell the account of Maxwell and Dallin Oaks encouraging the Smith Institute and FARMS to produce scholarship that would “protect our [i.e., the Brethren's] flanks.” I understood this to mean a (perhaps informal) 'teaming up' between the Brethren and Church-sponsored apologists -- giving said apologists a calling or blessing in connection with that work would seem entirely consistent, in my opinion.

The Nehor wrote:

Inconceivable wrote:Reading a handfull of FARMS reviews told me a great deal about the integrity of today's church leaders that have permitted them to be the authorized Charlotten faith healers of our day.

Every time I read something from guys like DCP etc., I am reminded of a fellow with a black apron saying, "..I have said nothing about Father". - because they never do.

You're an idiot.

After spending several visits and hours discussing topics with my former stake president (topics that he knew very little about), he gave me Bushman's Believing History and referred me to FARMS. This was after giving me a priesthood blessing.

Apologists are the Mormon church's last line of defense against the war on faith. Problem is, they suck at what they do. The brethren might as well have sent in the Marx Brothers. Besides, how can one defend the indefensable? They are simply calling evil good and good evil, cramming round pegs in square holes - just as we all mused at Satan's Protestant priest's definition of God and the Plan of Salvation ( read the Nicean Creed) in the pre-1990 endowment session.

I was always taught that the "gospel" (defined as the Mormon church not Jesus' Good News) is beautiful and simple enough for a child to understand. In reality, the church is a complex history of embarrassing, immoral and spiritually violating doctrine of man mingled with scripture where those that attempt to explain it away are who Jesus referred to as offending these little ones.

When you finally leave the church, you'll probably feel inclined to apologise to a few people for calling them names. That's cool.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Similarly, some have postulated that the top-drawer apologists were set apart by the General Authorities, and that FARMS Chairmanships and the like are actually Church callings. I also believe this is true...

..It certainly doesn't seem far-fetched to me. I recall in Bruce Hafen's bio of Neal Maxwell the account of Maxwell and Dallin Oaks encouraging the Smith Institute and FARMS to produce scholarship that would “protect our [i.e., the Brethren's] flanks.”

It is clear when the hierarchy intercedes, particularly when their men trained for the ministry go too far (like Palmer and others). This is indicative of their organized efforts in such things. They are very deliberate in their focus and mission to defend the facade.

Their attempt to obscure the main line between themselves and the Maxwell Institute/Farms brings this verse to mind:

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:15 - 16)

Inconceivable wrote:It is clear when the hierarchy intercedes, particularly when their men trained for the ministry go too far (like Palmer and others). This is indicative of their organized efforts in such things. They are very deliberate in their focus and mission to defend the facade.

Apologists have no special insights, no words of wisdom, no spiritual or otherwise nuggets of knowledge. They are just like everyone else, seeing through the glass darkly.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the Brethren. We, and they, aren't special, no matter how loudly we crow that we are. It is simply a sad sad truth.

Mister Scratch wrote:Do the apologists feel that their work is spiritual?

I think there is a difference between considering your work to be guided spiritually and proclaiming that God has revealed certain things to you. In other words, I think the apologists view their work as spiritual, but they do no set themselves up as an alternate revelatory authority to the church.

The only exception I can think of is Rod Meldrum, and I think the reason he got such a cold reception by apologists is that he claimed his theories were sanctioned by personal revelation.

Similarly, some have postulated that the top-drawer apologists were set apart by the General Authorities, and that FARMS Chairmanships and the like are actually Church callings. I also believe this is true. I believe that some members of the Maxwell Institute are actually fulfilling callings for the Church, and that, in a very real sense, they believe they are serving the Brethren on a kind of spiritual mission. I believe that hands were laid on the head of DCP and Louis Midgley, and that these brothers were called to be apologists for the Church.

Pure, unadulterated speculation. If there is such a thing as an "apologist" calling, I'm sure there must be other sources of evidence to back this statement up. Yet, I have seen nothing, unless you count John Larsen being set apart as the "ward unplanned party planner committee member" as somehow providing evidence that there is an apologist calling. Honestly, John's calling sounds more like a made up one that they creat to try and keep someone active - a practice for which there is plenty of evidence.

Didn't Bushman get a priesthood blessing from one of the twelve prior to writing his latest book on Joseph Smith?

Personally, I would bet a hot cocoa that the ("true" ) apologetic effort is done under the direction, (or with the approval, or with the brethren's blessings, or whatever) of LDS leaders, how could it not be?

The church is way too controlling and authoritarian to not be involved.

Just look at how the leaders worked with BRM? Or, BHR? The Book of Abraham papyri and HN? How they handled the Salamander fiasco? The Sept six, etc. etc. etc. How many sites do they monitor? Was it 1,500 or something?

~td~

dblagent007 wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Do the apologists feel that their work is spiritual?

I think there is a difference between considering your work to be guided spiritually and proclaiming that God has revealed certain things to you. In other words, I think the apologists view their work as spiritual, but they do no set themselves up as an alternate revelatory authority to the church.

The only exception I can think of is Rod Meldrum, and I think the reason he got such a cold reception by apologists is that he claimed his theories were sanctioned by personal revelation.

How can one's work be guided spiritually if God isn't the one revealing the guidance to you - whether you proclaim that He is or not? If God isn't an apologist's spiritual connection then from what spiritual source are they being guided?

Once again, I reference this statement, "..I have said nothing about Father".

Yes, Meldrum has been scoffed at by the apologists because he has claimed spiritual guidance (revelation) from the Father for his views. His claim is that he is not alone.

So Who is it that backs the apologists' claims? Or, more succinctly, who is it that has the power to regulate their views but does not do so publically?

The brethren?